It's amazing how many times on Slashdot I will read a post which completely misreads the definition of a corporation as an individual. Cluestick: It's not.
The lawmakers are not completely stupid. It's not corporations that are criminaly liable but their officers - as it should be. You can't punish a corporation by putting it in prison and you're not really punishing the people really responsible for the crime if you "kill" it. If Nike has committed any criminal offence - including any that deserves the death penalty, it's the people who are responsible for making those decisions who should face the jail time/death penalty. You don't want them to get away scot-free do you? If the United States laws recognize what Nike has done in terms of child labor abuse, I want our government to go after the executives who knew of this and put them in prison besides fining the company.
"Executing" the company means the people who are actually responsible for the crimes get away scot-free (relatively). Corporate charters only absolve the owners of FINANCIAL LIABILITY. Hiding behind the identity of a corporation DOES NOT allow them to get away from CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
Repeat after me: Corporations are treated as individuals only as far as non-criminal rights and responsibilities are concerned.
Bullshit. Granting rights and privileges to someone does not take them away from anyone else. Rights and privileges still belong to the individual citizen and to the corporate entities.
And the only liabilities limited are financial liabilities. The officers of a corporation are still responsible for all criminal liability incurred by a corporation as a result of any decisions they make. There's a big fucking difference in the way it is and the way you put it! Corporations can incur debt which the officers are not responsible for - in return for this there is dual taxation. However, if someone caused the corporation to steal or kill or hurt someone, the officer(s) responsible for that would face jail time in exactly the same circumstances as if it were an individual performing the action.
Corporations are a great tool for the creation of wealth - the only advantage they provide their "owners" over individual ownership is the absolvence of personal financial liabilities and the contract protection to their collective ownership.
The legislature and local administrations do often accord extraordinary privileges to corporations - like tax breaks to build new facilities. These are either the legislature offering an incentive in return for their belief that what the corporation does will benefit the community at large by creating jobs etc. (not too different from any contract you authorize the legislature/government to undertake on behalf of the people they represent) or simply corruption where the corporation has bought out the people casting the votes. Don't blame "corporations" in general for corruption - blame the legislators. It's just like it would be stupid to say "all white males are evil because white males like Marc Rich are able to buy pardons from the President!". There are evil corporations and there are good ones. They are evil or good based on the people who control them. Blame those people, don't blame the concept of a corporation in general.
Corporations are easy to blame because they don't have human faces to associate with them. However, that is a highly myopic view. Corporations are run by humans and do as much good or evil as those humans would.
The article is a little scarce on the details, but I expect so is the actual court ruling. They said that B&N lawyers raised several valid objections to the validity of the original patent. They didn't exactly say whether this was because of prior art or obviousness or some technicality. On this basis, the court stated that it would be inappropriate to grant an injunction against the use of the technology pending a full trial.
So the only difference is that while the original court said "You are obviously infringing. Stop now, until a full trial makes a decision either way.", the appeals court said "It's not that obvious that they are infringing. We're going to let them continue until the full trial makes a decision either way"
Virus myths: Ahh the good old days when the Good Times virus was clearly a hoax - unless you believed it in which case you would forward it around, fulfilling the prophecy!
Funnily enough, I see myself as a conservative and I agree that the "mainstream" news sites have a strong liberal bias which pisses me off. However, they are definitely more professional with their news coverage than Fox News which is more sensationalist in its coverage.
I don't think it's media bias, though. Over the years I have acquired more respect for the professionalism of news agencies such as CNN and MSNBC over agencies such as Fox News to a degree and more so over ZDNet and CNET et al.
Why don't those damn British people just adjust their clocks? We have to keep going in and saving their butts from the Germans and what do they reward us with? The metric system and incorrect clocks!
Ermm.. hello?? Real world calling head-in-sand Slashdotter. Have you actually spoken with any people outside the ones who visit you in your basement? Microsoft makes BILLIONS of dollars by selling their operating system. Rather well for a complete failure, isn't it?
Moron, read the post above. Outlook simply provides you the ability to do things faster. If that means executing an attachment which will do great things then that's what it does. It also means if you are an idiot it will take you to hell faster. Same thing as having a car. You can use it to go where you want to and you can use it to drive off a cliff. Don't blame the car.
Are you completely incapable of critical thought? We are talking about the ILOVEYOU virus here. That was NOT Outlook's fault. The discussion is not about whether Outlook is good or sucks. The discussion is whether Outlook is to blame for the ILOVEYOU virus.
Bullshit. Yes, Outlook pretends to know where you're going and is often wrong but this virus has nothing to do with that. The ILOVEYOU virus was spread simply because users could simply double-click on an attachment to execute it. The difference between Outlook and other clients in this regard is that other clients make it a pain in the ass to do so because their developers never thought anyone would want to execute an attachment. So it's more like giving you a car. If people give you the directions to hell which you choose to follow, Outlook will simply take you there faster. Other clients might save you from going there because they make it too far away.
That's like saying you'd rather use a horse-drawn buggy because it cost you so much time when you had that accident with a car.
The ILOVEYOU mess was because Outlook made it easy to execute an attachment. This also made it easy for users to shoot themselves in the foot but don't blame Outlook.
Yes, and the court upholds that right. If I remember the court ruling correctly, it's perfectly legal for you to "steal" the DirectTV signal. It's also perfectly legal for them to scramble it so you can't.
The only thing I liked about halftime was Britney in her tight pants
What?! And you totally missed her.. umm.. things? I have to confess first that I haven't really seen many pictures or videos of her before but when she came on TV the first thing I thought was "Wow, she has nice (things)" and when I said it loud, most people in the room said that was what they were thinking too.
Hey, it's just new technology. I'm pretty sure once it matures and as processing speeds increase, we will be able to get smooth real-time (you don't have to pause to change angles) motion at high-res. I thought it was pretty cool for a brand-new technology.
I'm pretty sure that the first time they had multi-camera shots in a game there were problems with those back then but gradually the producers got better at using multiple angle replays as part of the broadcast.
Ad: Volkswagen "car in the tree"
Premise: Some idiot let the clutch out too soon and the car has so much power it ended up in a tree Subtext: Our customers are so stupid that they think a car will land in a tree right-side-up and the guy who let out the clutch too soon would magically appear on the ground below it without the car.
PS: It's just an attempt at humor. I thought it was a pretty funny commercial.
Actually it wasn't hundreds of cameras, more like 10.
Those images were obtained by interpolating the frames between two cameras. I think about 5 frames between each pair of cameras.
Why do you think they had to pause the video to change angles? They didn't have the processing speed to do realtime interpolating between 5 sets of frames so they took two frames at the same time and interpolated between them to obtain 5 frames.
If there were no car companies, all those who have died from car accidents would not have.
If there were no airline companies, all those who have died from plane crashes would not have.
If there were no alcohol companies, all those who have died from a drunk driver would not have.
Neither of these arguments make any sense. They sell a product which has the potential for harmful side-effects. Name an industry and I think I'll be able to come up with someone who would still be alive were it not for that industry. None of those are the fault of the industry, but the fault of the people using the product and plain old misfortune. Feel free to enact laws to regulate the business or make the business illegal if you think the risks are too bad. But don't blame them for carrying out a legal business which politicians are too scared to make illegal but at the same time want to screw over because it's popular to do so.
I believe what this meant was about how it would affect what Linus did now. Right now he's employed by Transmeta and he spends at least part of his time managing the Linux project. Would AMD want to let that deal continue exactly the same? Would they want him to spend his time on something else instead? Would they just not want him to work for them? Speculation all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's amazing how many times on Slashdot I will read a post which completely misreads the definition of a corporation as an individual. Cluestick: It's not.
The lawmakers are not completely stupid. It's not corporations that are criminaly liable but their officers - as it should be. You can't punish a corporation by putting it in prison and you're not really punishing the people really responsible for the crime if you "kill" it. If Nike has committed any criminal offence - including any that deserves the death penalty, it's the people who are responsible for making those decisions who should face the jail time/death penalty. You don't want them to get away scot-free do you? If the United States laws recognize what Nike has done in terms of child labor abuse, I want our government to go after the executives who knew of this and put them in prison besides fining the company.
"Executing" the company means the people who are actually responsible for the crimes get away scot-free (relatively). Corporate charters only absolve the owners of FINANCIAL LIABILITY. Hiding behind the identity of a corporation DOES NOT allow them to get away from CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
Repeat after me: Corporations are treated as individuals only as far as non-criminal rights and responsibilities are concerned.
Bullshit. Granting rights and privileges to someone does not take them away from anyone else. Rights and privileges still belong to the individual citizen and to the corporate entities.
And the only liabilities limited are financial liabilities. The officers of a corporation are still responsible for all criminal liability incurred by a corporation as a result of any decisions they make. There's a big fucking difference in the way it is and the way you put it! Corporations can incur debt which the officers are not responsible for - in return for this there is dual taxation. However, if someone caused the corporation to steal or kill or hurt someone, the officer(s) responsible for that would face jail time in exactly the same circumstances as if it were an individual performing the action.
Corporations are a great tool for the creation of wealth - the only advantage they provide their "owners" over individual ownership is the absolvence of personal financial liabilities and the contract protection to their collective ownership.
The legislature and local administrations do often accord extraordinary privileges to corporations - like tax breaks to build new facilities. These are either the legislature offering an incentive in return for their belief that what the corporation does will benefit the community at large by creating jobs etc. (not too different from any contract you authorize the legislature/government to undertake on behalf of the people they represent) or simply corruption where the corporation has bought out the people casting the votes. Don't blame "corporations" in general for corruption - blame the legislators. It's just like it would be stupid to say "all white males are evil because white males like Marc Rich are able to buy pardons from the President!". There are evil corporations and there are good ones. They are evil or good based on the people who control them. Blame those people, don't blame the concept of a corporation in general.
Corporations are easy to blame because they don't have human faces to associate with them. However, that is a highly myopic view. Corporations are run by humans and do as much good or evil as those humans would.
The article is a little scarce on the details, but I expect so is the actual court ruling. They said that B&N lawyers raised several valid objections to the validity of the original patent. They didn't exactly say whether this was because of prior art or obviousness or some technicality. On this basis, the court stated that it would be inappropriate to grant an injunction against the use of the technology pending a full trial.
So the only difference is that while the original court said "You are obviously infringing. Stop now, until a full trial makes a decision either way.", the appeals court said "It's not that obvious that they are infringing. We're going to let them continue until the full trial makes a decision either way"
Virus myths: Ahh the good old days when the Good Times virus was clearly a hoax - unless you believed it in which case you would forward it around, fulfilling the prophecy!
Funnily enough, I see myself as a conservative and I agree that the "mainstream" news sites have a strong liberal bias which pisses me off. However, they are definitely more professional with their news coverage than Fox News which is more sensationalist in its coverage.
MSNBC seems to spin it differently too, saying No Napster Reprieve.
I don't think it's media bias, though. Over the years I have acquired more respect for the professionalism of news agencies such as CNN and MSNBC over agencies such as Fox News to a degree and more so over ZDNet and CNET et al.
Why don't those damn British people just adjust their clocks? We have to keep going in and saving their butts from the Germans and what do they reward us with? The metric system and incorrect clocks!
Amazon.com had a scheme where they provided employees with greater compensation to do this but backed off on it.
Read the fucking article. They had a warrant.
They had a warranty.
I think I got one of those with my toaster oven. I'm going to go serve it up to those annoying kids that live in the apartment below.
When they landed, they would push the Earth a little bit away from the Sun
You didn't study much Physics in school, did you? (Hint: Think conservation of momentum)
I can't remember a single time that this has happened!
Ermm.. hello?? Real world calling head-in-sand Slashdotter. Have you actually spoken with any people outside the ones who visit you in your basement? Microsoft makes BILLIONS of dollars by selling their operating system. Rather well for a complete failure, isn't it?
Ermm.. hardware based attacks are wiretaps to the speakers. Nothing can stop that.
Moron, read the post above. Outlook simply provides you the ability to do things faster. If that means executing an attachment which will do great things then that's what it does. It also means if you are an idiot it will take you to hell faster. Same thing as having a car. You can use it to go where you want to and you can use it to drive off a cliff. Don't blame the car.
Are you completely incapable of critical thought? We are talking about the ILOVEYOU virus here. That was NOT Outlook's fault. The discussion is not about whether Outlook is good or sucks. The discussion is whether Outlook is to blame for the ILOVEYOU virus.
Bullshit. Yes, Outlook pretends to know where you're going and is often wrong but this virus has nothing to do with that. The ILOVEYOU virus was spread simply because users could simply double-click on an attachment to execute it. The difference between Outlook and other clients in this regard is that other clients make it a pain in the ass to do so because their developers never thought anyone would want to execute an attachment. So it's more like giving you a car. If people give you the directions to hell which you choose to follow, Outlook will simply take you there faster. Other clients might save you from going there because they make it too far away.
That's like saying you'd rather use a horse-drawn buggy because it cost you so much time when you had that accident with a car.
The ILOVEYOU mess was because Outlook made it easy to execute an attachment. This also made it easy for users to shoot themselves in the foot but don't blame Outlook.
Yes, and the court upholds that right. If I remember the court ruling correctly, it's perfectly legal for you to "steal" the DirectTV signal. It's also perfectly legal for them to scramble it so you can't.
The only thing I liked about halftime was Britney in her tight pants
What?! And you totally missed her.. umm.. things? I have to confess first that I haven't really seen many pictures or videos of her before but when she came on TV the first thing I thought was "Wow, she has nice (things)" and when I said it loud, most people in the room said that was what they were thinking too.
Hey, it's just new technology. I'm pretty sure once it matures and as processing speeds increase, we will be able to get smooth real-time (you don't have to pause to change angles) motion at high-res. I thought it was pretty cool for a brand-new technology. I'm pretty sure that the first time they had multi-camera shots in a game there were problems with those back then but gradually the producers got better at using multiple angle replays as part of the broadcast.
Ad: Volkswagen "car in the tree"
Premise: Some idiot let the clutch out too soon and the car has so much power it ended up in a tree
Subtext: Our customers are so stupid that they think a car will land in a tree right-side-up and the guy who let out the clutch too soon would magically appear on the ground below it without the car.
PS: It's just an attempt at humor. I thought it was a pretty funny commercial.
Actually it wasn't hundreds of cameras, more like 10.
Those images were obtained by interpolating the frames between two cameras. I think about 5 frames between each pair of cameras.
Why do you think they had to pause the video to change angles? They didn't have the processing speed to do realtime interpolating between 5 sets of frames so they took two frames at the same time and interpolated between them to obtain 5 frames.
If there were no car companies, all those who have died from car accidents would not have.
If there were no airline companies, all those who have died from plane crashes would not have.
If there were no alcohol companies, all those who have died from a drunk driver would not have.
Neither of these arguments make any sense. They sell a product which has the potential for harmful side-effects. Name an industry and I think I'll be able to come up with someone who would still be alive were it not for that industry. None of those are the fault of the industry, but the fault of the people using the product and plain old misfortune. Feel free to enact laws to regulate the business or make the business illegal if you think the risks are too bad. But don't blame them for carrying out a legal business which politicians are too scared to make illegal but at the same time want to screw over because it's popular to do so.
I believe what this meant was about how it would affect what Linus did now. Right now he's employed by Transmeta and he spends at least part of his time managing the Linux project. Would AMD want to let that deal continue exactly the same? Would they want him to spend his time on something else instead? Would they just not want him to work for them? Speculation all.